2 



174 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON AN [Feb. 17, 



(19) Acanthodrilus {Benhamial) scioana, Rosa. Scioa. 



(20) Acanthodrilus {Benhamia) rosea, Midi. Gaboon. 



(21) AcanfJiodrilus (Benhamia) q^nis,yr\ch. Quilimane. 



(22) Acanthodrilus (Benhamia) tenuis, Mich. Barombi. 



(23) Perionyx, sp., Mich. East Africa. 



(24) Callidrilus scrobifer, Mich. Quilimane. 

 (2.5) Microchceta rappii, mihi. Natal. 



(26) Microchceta beddardi, Benham. Natal. 



(27) Siphonogaster cBgyptiacus, Leviusen. Banks of Nile. 



(28) Siphonogaster millsoni, mihi. Yoruba-land. 



(29) Diifitibranchus niloticus, Levinsen (? = Alma nilotica). 



Banks of Nile. 



(30) PerichSBta capensis, Horst. Cape of Good Hope. 

 ?(31) Lvmbricus capensis, K\nher^. Cape\ 

 ?(32) Geogenia natalensis, Kinherg. Natal" 

 ? (33) Hegesipyle ha?ino, Kinberg. Natal ^. 



It is clear therefore that the Ethiopian region is very well marked 

 as a region by its Earthworm famia, but that its resemblances are 

 with Patagonia and New Zealand as regards the prevalence of Acan- 

 thodrilidae. [In this list those genera which also occur outside of 

 the Ethiopian region are printed in larger type.] 



The specimens of Libyodrilus violaceus I owe to the kindness of 

 Mr. Alvan Millson, Assistant Colonial Secretary at Lagos, West 

 Africa ; Mr. Millson was so good as to bring a large number of living 

 specimens with him in January of the present year. The living 

 worm is of a uniform greyish-purple colour ; it is not active in its 

 movements ; when killed in spirit the worms generally protruded 

 the buccal cavity, which, from its rich blood-supply, appeared bright 

 red. One of the characteristics of the genus Pericheeta is that the 

 buccal cavity is continually protruded and retracted while the animal 

 is in motion ; but the protruded portion of the alimentary tract is of 

 a grepsh colour, which indicates either the thickness of its walls or 



1 Several other species have been described bv Kinberg, but they cannot at 

 present be identified, and I do not therefore think it worth while to mention 

 them in this Ust. I mention Lumbricus cajpensis, because it is one of those 

 species which I have been able, through the kindness of Prof. Loven, to 

 examine for myself. This examination, however, has not led to any important 

 results ; the specimen was very much softened — a fate which is apt to overtake 

 Earthworms that have not been properly preserved in the first instance. I have 

 found out tliat Lumbricus capemis is not a Lumbricus at all ; Kinberg puts it 

 in that o-enus on account of the supposed paired character of the seta. The 

 setffi, as a matter of fact, are not paired : the seta of each segment are placed 

 far apart from each other, so that f rom Kinberg's own point of view this species 

 should not have been included in the genus Lumbricus. I find too that the 

 gizzard is situated anteriorly, in or about tlie eighth segment. The species is very 

 possibly an Acanthodrilus, but I could not detect any of the other organs of the 

 body, and cannot therefore say more than tkit it is not a Lumbricus. 



2 Perrier (Comptes Kendus, t. cii.) regards this as a distinct generic form; 

 but that was before the various papers on the Eudrilidse of Africa were 

 published. 



' This, according to Perrier {loc. cit.), is an Acanthodrilus. 



